As Diggs go, it wasn't much: five hundred digg points and a
hundred or so comments. However, in one day it brought
over 10,000 visitors to one article: Death of the command line. As this site
typically gets less than 7,000 visitors a day spread over thousands
of articles, that's a big visitation.
An unfortunately large number of readers didn't have a clue
what the article was about. Too many people thought I
was bemoaning having to use the command line. Actually
the point was entirely opposite that, but it wasn't spelled
out in big block letters. That's the first lesson of Digg:
subtlety is lost on a large percentage of readers.
No, I'm not saying Digg readers are dumb. I'm saying
that many of them are hasty. no doubt they are trying to
be good Diggers and read a lot of posts, but wow: things
can get off base very quickly.
For example, the very first
comment said "That's because you're using a noob distro like ubuntu".
In fact, the article referenced a Suse install, but more importantly,
that comment set a theme or an expectation. That's the second
thing I learned about Digg: what people think in comments
can shape what other people think when they read your post. If
that first comment was the result of hasty reading or misunderstanding,
that error may infect other readers. Not all, of course. But
accuracy can get lost in noise.
There's an opposite side to that too: hasty readers don't read
other people's comments closely either, so you get repetition
of ideas in comments. In this case, "Automator" was mentioned
several times. The original post
"In fact, some graphical programming environments work just like that: you drag around little tools and create bigger tools without suffering the indignities of that awful command line"
But that didn't stop comments like:
This idea already exists. On a Mac there is a piece of built in software called Automator.
Apple is way ahead of you with AppleScript and Automator.
It sounds like he wants Apple's Automator program.
Isn't what he's talking about the OS X Automator?
These show both a lack of careful reading of the original article
and of course a complete disregard for other folks comments.
As I implied above, I could have been more direct in the
article. Perhaps I could have avoided comments like:
Lameo, just coz some guy forgot some commands - "the command line is dead"
Just because the author is clearly a point-click user, that does not make his point valid
I'm far from a "point and click user", but I never said that. I
never said that what was bothering me is`a trend by developers to
ignore command line tools in favor of GUI versions. So some
of the misinterpretation is my fault.
I doubt that this article will be Dugg, but if it were, I
wonder how many readers would think I am casting doubt on
their intelligence. I'm not. I do think Diggers could read
a little more slowly and take note of other folks comments
before adding effective duplicates, but that's just the way it is.
The question is, what to do about it? I do think I have to
be more explicit, but on the other hand, pedantic writing can be
pretty boring. As an intelligent reader, I don't like to
be beat about the head by an author who wants to be certain I
catch his meaning. Maybe there isn't a perfect answer for this:
no matter what the level of writing, there will be problems
for some readers.
I did make a small postscript to the original article
today. It's too late, of course, but some stragglers
are still coming in, so perhaps it can help.
Technorati tags: Digg
If this page was useful to you, please help others find it:
More Articles by Anthony Lawrence
- Find me on Google+
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Jump to Comments
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.